Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday May 22, 2009 @12:23PM
from the turtles-all-the-way-up dept.

oh-my-god sends word that the Swedish judge assigned to review whether the trial judge in the Pirate Bay trial was biased has now been removed — for bias. Here's a local news account in Swedish, which Google fails to translate. We've discussed the convolutions of this case on more than one occasion.

To summarize: The trial judge is being accused of bias because he is a member of several IP protection groups. The judge assigned to review those allegations is also a member of the same groups. What's worse is that it seems the original judge may have directed the case specifically to this new judge.

The unanswered question is, why was the second judge found to be biased? If his membership in those groups made it inappropriate for him to judge copyright cases in general, that would imply the first judge will also be found biased. But if his membership only made it inappropriate because he was judging the implications of the first judge's membership, that is less meaningful.

Court of appeal replaces the newly the occupied judge in Pirate Bay. The question about the district court been jävig is decided now of three judges from another department.

It can for my information be mentioned that neither these is or has been members in someone of the associations that are current in the objective, the court of appeal types in a pressure message.

After information about that the newly the occupied court of appeal judge in Pirate Bay earlier been member in same copyright association that it jävsanklagade the district court judge, the President, the Court of Appeal was requested yesterday to examine unless another off the court's departments should decide jävsfrågan.

Today came beslutet: The appointed Judge of Appeal Ulrika Ihrfelt, that works on the department that has special direction on copyright and immaterialrättsliga objectives, may not sentence in the question about the district court been jävig.

Instead comes jävsfrågan to be moved to another off the court of appeal's departments and where to be examined o

It would seem obvious wouldn't it. But since when is the obvious ever a factor when rendering decisions? And I speak not only of legal decisions, but of decisions we all make at large. Jews/Christians/Muslims quite often don't believe in magic but at the same time believes an invisible being turned people into salt. I am equally guilty of overlooking reasonable and logical conclusions in favor of my own personal beliefs or feelings on a matter. (For example, my ex-wife was a complete wreck of a woman a

I don't know if that's true or not, but even if it's not, it's not really as unreasonable a conclusion as the GP makes it out to be. For the sake of argument, assume that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent god that watches over us. It's not so much that Christians don't believe "in magic", but that they believe humans aren't capable of such a thing (and are quite right, of course). However, there's no reason that our inability to do something means that an omnipotent deity wouldn't be able to do it. Such a

To summarize: The trial judge is being accused of bias because he is a member of several IP protection groups. The judge assigned to review those allegations is also a member of the same groups. What's worse is that it seems the original judge may have directed the case specifically to this new judge.

The unanswered question is, why was the second judge found to be biased?

Before you get your panties all in a bunch - the first judge has been accused of bias because he's member of one copyright interest group, on the board of another where there are also members related to the prosecution and I think most importantly because he did not disclose that before the trial so a bias consideration could be made. These groups have very vocal members pushing for the criminalization of middle men like ISPs and search engines and strenghtening copyright in general, there's some argument as to whether that are those groups' official position or if they're just discussion forums - it's definately muddy waters. Normally that would not be considered sufficient bias in a fairly settled area of copyright law - judges are expected to be able to talk to people that have wacky legal theories and dismiss them - but when there's a very principally important case on a definitive gray area of the law it is important both for the judge not to be partial nor to appear partial. I think his apparent covertness in this issue will force them to do a retrial, whether the memberships themselves would be enough or not.

Normally a question of bias would involve that judge's personal life - family, friends, business relationships or other circumstances that make them unsuited for ruling the case and so there's no problem that a judge from the same department does it. In this case the judge has been accused of being favorable to copyright holders more or less in general, which could apply to pretty much everyone working in that department. To avoid most of the wild conspiracy theories and any hint of bias they've appointed a three judge panel from another department, the second judge has not in any shape, way or form found to be biased. This is to make sure they got a 100% legally sound decision on what's acceptable relations for a judge and will not cause worldwide headlines of "Pirate Bay judge accused of bias" again. Look at it from their point of view, never before has Sweden's court system been so publicly dragged through the mud with the eyes of the world watching. And I don't mean slashdot but every top 100 news site in the world.

For clarity: the judge that is no longer judging the TPB-judge is a woman.
Also, one of the three judges that are to take her place is a member of the same research group as two of the prosecutors lawyers. The show must go on!

The prejudice question will now be tried by three other judges from another department that doesn't have intellectual property rights as a specialty.

The question will have priority and will take a few weeks to process. If it is decided that Norström had a prejudice the case will have to be retried. But if it's decided that there was no prejudice then the case can be appealed at a higher instance.

So the case was originally handled by a department specialized in immaterial rights. Obviously many members of that department are members in organizations handling the immaterial rights or have connections with such organizations.

It may be interesting to see where this ends. What's at stake here is the trust in the legal system. And if it's decided that there was a prejudice then the whole department handling immaterial rights are essentially disqualified from the action.

If both legal systems are part of the same circus than the Swedish system is the clown car where another clown keeps getting out of the car just when you think it's empty and the US system is the rampaging elephant that tramples the audience.

I'm wondering if the RIAA is giving away freebies to judges. Something along the lines of how some of the drug companies give free cruises to Doctors. Something along the lines of:

$DOCTOR_WHO_PRESCRIBED_DRUGS$, please come on this free ocean going cruise. We are a great drug company. We like Doctors. We support Doctors. You just have to listen to one free speech on $DRUG_OF_THE_DAY$. Aren't we a great company? Isn't this cruise great? Oh and it's free!

The Wired article is already in English...the Swedish article is just a local take on the story. Presumably, you can get all the information you need from the Wired story. I wouldn't know of course, because as a Slashdotter I have a pathological aversion to reading the articles.

It wouldn't be so bad, but this pathological aversion to reading articles is affecting my graduate school education as well. I haven't gone over a reading in months, and whenever my professor doesn't like what I say, I just mod him down as a troll.

The affiliation of the judge in a case he has to decide with one of the both parties is called bias. If the judge who has to judge if it was bias is in the same organization whose membership was the grounds on which the accusation of bias was based on, is in exactly the same organization, then his judgement about exactly this membership will be as biased.

Wait - you mean in Sweden, defendants can rest assured that any impartiality, unfairness, or political influence on the part of the justice system will be discovered and corrected before they are railroaded into prison and forgotten about?
I'd heard that all the women there are bisexual and made of nachos, but this truly is incredible news. Can I be Swedish? Please?

Why care about the trail when you know it is going to be thrown out anyway.

So don't care about the trial. But this "hey, let's everybody send the lawyers of the winning side one penny so that they have to pay more money to process it than they collect! ha ha ha !" crap is just petty and childish.

I'm perfectly willing to accept multiple arguments on the issue of copyright infringement as valid, and for what it's worth I don't believe a tracker should ever be liable for anything. But at the same time, cou

Google fails to automatically translate the page, but not the content. Translation follows:

The Court of Appeal replace the newly appointed judge in Pirate Bay case. The question of the district court was biased now determined by three judges from another department.

The information can be mentioned that none of these are or have been members of any of the compounds are present in the case, write the court of appeal in a press release.

Following reports that the newly appointed Court of Appeal judge in Pirate Baymålet previously been a member of the same compound as the copyright jävsanklagade District Court judge, asked the Court of Appeal president yesterday to hear unless another law departments should determine jävsfrågan.

Today came the decision: Designated hovrätt Council Ulrika Ihrfelt, who works for the department which has a special focus on copyright and intellectual property goals, may not adjudicate the issue of the district court was biased.

Instead, jävsfrågan be moved to another court of appeal of the departments and review by the department head, hovrätt lagmannen Anders Eka together with the Court of Appeal councils Christina Jacobsson and Ulrika Beer Grehn.

"The reasons for this is to jävsfrågan to be reviewed by other judges than those which may subsequently come to try the case and that, having regard to the contents of jävs-opposition, deemed appropriate to jävsfrågan be determined on a department that has not specialized on copyright, "writes the court of appeal in the press release.

Jävsfrågan should be treated with priority. Court of Appeal president Fredrik Wersäll expect that decision may come "in a maximum of a few weeks", states the TT.

The Court of Appeal will not go ahead with the Pirate Bay case until jävsfrågan settlement. If Norström would be judged as biased, the goal can be sent back to district court and the ruling reopened.

Several of the condemned pirates defense lawyers argue that Norström been biased, particularly because he is a member of several compounds related to copyright. The four sentenced to one year's imprisonment and to pay damages of 30 million.

Google fails to automatically translate the page, but not the content. Translation follows:

I don't know any Swedish, but it seems like a pretty good translation. The main thing left untranslated is the word "jävsfrågan" which recurs repeatedly throughout the text.

While I don't know Swedish, I know enough Germanic languages to guess (correctly as it turns out) that "frågan" is 'question'. And "jäv" appears to be 'bias' with 'jävs' the genitive form, thus "jävsfrågan" appears to be 'question of bias'. Similarly, "anklagade" is 'accused', so "jävsanklagade" is 'accused of bias'.

With that in mind the modified translation is:

The Court of Appeal replace the newly appointed judge in Pirate Bay case. The question of the district court was biased now determined by three judges from another department.

The information can be mentioned that none of these are or have been members of any of the compounds are present in the case, write the court of appeal in a press release.

Following reports that the newly appointed Court of Appeal judge in Pirate Baymålet previously been a member of the same compound as the District Court judge accused of copyright bias, asked the Court of Appeal president yesterday to hear unless another law department should determine the question of bias.

Today came the decision: Designated Court of Appeal Council Ulrika Ihrfelt, who works for the department which has a special focus on copyright and intellectual property goals, may not adjudicate the issue of the district court was biased.

Instead, questions of bias will be moved to another court of appeal of the departments and review by the department head, Court of Appeal lagmannen Anders Eka together with the Court of Appeal councils Christina Jacobsson and Ulrika Beer Grehn.

"The reasons for this is for the question of bias to be reviewed by other judges than those which may subsequently come to try the case and that, having regard to the contents of the allegations of bias, deemed appropriate that questions of bias be determined by a department that has not specialized on copyright," writes the court of appeal in the press release.

Questions of bias should be treated with priority. Court of Appeal president Fredrik Wersäll expects that decision may come "in a maximum of a few weeks", states the TT.

The Court of Appeal will not go ahead with the Pirate Bay case until the question of bias is settled. If Norström would be judged as biased, the goal can be sent back to district court and the ruling reopened.

Several of the condemned pirates defense lawyers argue that Norström been biased, particularly because he is a member of several compounds related to copyright. The four sentenced to one year's imprisonment and to pay damages of 30 million.

BAH! WTF - this is too true - next thing you know its going to be the llamas have been put in charge and those responsible for the sacking of the sackers of the judges who have just been sacked have been sacked. I don't think llamas can be members of any copyright extremist groups.

Following reports that the newly appointed Court of Appeal judge in Pirate BaymÃ¥let previously been a member of the same compound as the copyright jÃvsanklagade District Court judge, asked the Court of Appeal president yesterday to hear unless another law departments should determine jÃvsfrÃ¥gan.

Today came the decision: Designated hovrÃtt Council Ulrika Ihrfelt, who works for the department which has a special focus on copyright and intellectual property goals, may not adjudicate the issue of the district court was biased.

Instead, jÃvsfrÃ¥gan be moved to another court of appeal of the departments and review by the department head, hovrÃtt lagmannen Anders Eka together with the Court of Appeal councils Christina Jacobsson and Ulrika Beer Grehn.

"The reasons for this is to jÃvsfrÃ¥gan to be reviewed by other judges than those which may subsequently come to try the case and that, having regard to the contents of jÃvs-opposition, deemed appropriate to jÃvsfrÃ¥gan be determined on a department that has not specialized on copyright, "writes the court of appeal in the press release.

JÃvsfrÃ¥gan should be treated with priority. Court of Appeal president Fredrik WersÃll expect that decision may come "in a maximum of a few weeks", states the TT.

The Court of Appeal will not go ahead with the Pirate Bay case until jÃvsfrÃ¥gan settlement. If NorstrÃm would be judged as biased, the goal can be sent back to district court and the ruling reopened.

Several of the condemned pirates defense lawyers argue that NorstrÃm been biased, particularly because he is a member of several compounds related to copyright. The four were sentenced to one year's imprisonment and to pay damages of 30 million.

The Court of Appeals is replacing the newly appointed appelate court judge in the Pirate Bay-case. The issue of whether the local court Tingsrätten had a inappropriate bias will now be decided by three judges from a different department.

- It can be noted that none of these three are, or have been, members of any of the groups that are relevant in this case, the Court of Appeals write in a press release.

After learning that the newly appointed Court of Appeals judge in the Pirate Bay case has been a member of the same Intellectual property industry group as the local judge accused of bias, the president of the Court of Appeals was asked yesterday to try whether another department should rule on the issue of bias.

Today the decision was made: The appointed "Hovrättsrådet" Ulrika Ihrfelt, who works in the department specialized in cases on copyright/creators' rights and intangible assets, is not allowed to judge whether the local court had inappropriate bias when judging the case -"varit jävig".

Instead, the issue of bias will be moved to another department of the Appelate Court and be tried by the manager of that department, Anders Eka, and judges Christina Jacobsson and Ulrika Beergrehn.

"The reasons for this is partly that the issue of bias ought to be tried by other judges than those who could be asked to later judge in the actual case, and partly in consideration of the objection to the bias, it has been deemed appropriate that the issue of bias is decided by another department not specialized in copyright", the court writes in the press release.

Then issue will be decided with priority. The president of the Court of Appeals, Fredrik Wersäll, is counting on the decision coming "within some weeks at most", according to the news agency TT.

The Court of Appeals will not start handling the Pirate bay-case until the issue of bias has been decided. If Norström is considered biased the case can be sent back to the local court and the verdict will be torn up.

The defense lawyers of several of the convicted pirates claim that Norström had a bias, i.e through being a member of several industry groups connected to copyright. The four were sentenced to one year in prison and damages of 30 million SEK (ca $4 million).

(end of article)

Note that in Swedish, having had bias is almost the same as having been a dickhead. "varit jävig" vs. "varit jävlig".

TingsrÃtten is the lowest court, all cases go before a judge and three lay assistants that judge the case on the evidence.

HovrÃtten is the next level, its the district appeals courts of Sweden. A large number of cases end up here and are judged by three judges. Pirate Bay was always going to end up there since its such a difficult case.

HÃgsta Domstolen is the Supreme Court of Sweden, it only handles very sticky cases and those that set precedents.

What has happened is that the lawyers for the Pirate Bay people have appealed to HovrÃtten and also put forward a claim that the original judge in TingsrÃtten is biased due to his membership in an association for copyright interests. The HovrÃtts-judge that was going to assess this claim has previously been a member of such an association and has because of this been recused. A panel of three senior judges in the HovrÃtt is now going to first assess the TingsrÃtten judges possible bias and then make a determination if the trial needs to be remade in TingsrÃtten with a new judge, or if it should be redone in HovrÃtten. These three have no affiliations with special interest groups on copyright and do not practice that kind of law.

Im quite pleased actually that our Judicial system is so carefully dealing with the whole Pirate Bay mess.

No. Nothing appears to have happened to original verdict yet, as the original judge's bias has not been evaluated. The judge who was judging the bias of the original case was dismissed, so I assume they must restart the review the bias of the original case, and then, if needed, have a retrial. Unless they run out of judges.

Well, the bias review hadn't really gotten anywhere before the court itself requested the case to be transferred to another section of the court to avoid the possible appearance of bias on part of the reviewing judge. The review board was also expanded to three judges.

Of course, as it's now turned out, at least one of the three judges on the board, Anders Eka, has worked with several of the industry lawyers under the leadership of one of the more rabid intellectual property advocates, Jan Rosén, at Sto

I have a question. Why does Slashdot constantly side with PirateBay? You are aware that they were running a major piracy ring, right? That they were providing the torrent trackers that facilitated the distribution of copyrighted materials?

Don't you guys ever wonder why big-name developers like John Carmack don't post here anymore? Slashdot has adopted a position that it is completely okay to rip people off and never pay them for their work. The site mindlessly posts two or three pro-piracy articles per day to appease the masses, who will subsequently drive up ad revenues by clicking and posting about how evil they think capitalism is.

All of this is amusing considering Slashdot has threatened websites in the past for posting Slashdot's stories--due to copyright infringement. And Slashdotters love to make a big deal when a company "steals" GPL code. Apparently, piracy isn't theft and copyrights don't matter except when it benefits you.

I have a question. Why does Slashdot constantly side with PirateBay? You are aware that they were running a major piracy ring, right? That they were providing the torrent trackers that facilitated the distribution of copyrighted materials?

Because they're like our modern day Robin Hood. They rob from the rich and corrupt, and give to the poor, in a sense.

In reality, they've abided by Swedish law. They do not give people illegal files. They do not host illegal files. They do not even link to illegal files. What they do is link to links that will link a computer to what could be illegal files (or legitimate files). They're just total bastards about it because someone who doesn't like their stuff being distributed by people who their links linking linking to is in a big huff and can't legally do anything about it, so they're breaking greater laws to bring these Robin Hoods to justice (through federal corruption).

So in a sense, you're watching two guys fighting it out. One is neutral (not good or bad, technically, as they facilitate both with their hands off the watch) and the other is evil. It's allowable for us to boo and hiss the villain when he's brought a gun to a knife fight. It's also allowed for us to cheer the morally-neutral anti-hero as he brazenly swashbuckles and insults the villain's poor taste of dress (all the while winking at the crowd with a smile that says "It's ok guys, I got this!").

Hi there.I'm an indie developer who makes games from his spare bedroom. I earn less than most software developers do, and have fuck all pension plan or work benefits,The piratebay make it possible for people to rip me off and take a game that takes me 10 hours a day a year to make... for free.

The piratebay is funded by a right wing millionaire businessman closely connected to fascist and racist organisations in Sweden. Google 'carl lundstrom' for details. TPB has many adverts and is one of the most popular

ah cool. as usual, slashdot mods me flamebait rather than try and explain why I'm wrong by replying. Some people REALLY don't like carl lundstrom's name being mentioned. Does the 'keep sweden white' politician somewhat embarrass the left-wing supporters of 'free content' maybe?

I think you are modded off-topic rather than wrong. Plus reiterating that nutty rant from The Register. At the end of the day, how does donating money to an online directory, pretty much the equivalent of Google but with less censorship, like TPB "keep sweden white"? It doesn't make any sense.

I must disagree with the person who modded you as "Flamebait" as you state a good case. The issue is, though, that The Pirate Bay are not the guys distributing your files. The guys who post it on The Pirate Bay are the ones that are responsible for that.

I, personally, find The Pirate Bay's neglectful attitude to be morally deviant, but I find the RIAA to be morally abject. I figured my comparison to Robin Hood to be quite accurate -- since he, too, was but a thief (even a robber) with good PR. Perhaps

Yes, I agree to an extent. The RIAA was not the only place that was applying pressure. What about all the software companies? Do they fall into the same morally abject group as the RIAA?

Only if they're buying judges and legislators, demanding extradition from countries that don't offer extradition, committing perjury, monopolistic business practices, and making me listen to "Love Hurts" by Linkin Park every [bloody] time I turn on the radio in my car. Let them seek reimbursement if they can find the legal grounds to do so -- especially when they've made the trade between producer and consumer as accomodating as possible toward the consumer... but it would be more fair if they were able to

> The piratebay make it possible for people to rip me off and take a game that takes me 10> hours a day a year to make... for free.

If you can not bring your current business model in line with the information-sharing-reality, stop it and go do something that cant be easily copied and reproduced at zero cost, with a tool anybody can afford.

> In short, it makes a mega-fuckton of ad money from other peoples work.

The piratebay is funded by a right wing millionaire businessman closely connected to fascist and racist organisations in Sweden. Google 'carl lundstrom' for details.

Wow, that I did not know. I don't understand how that could possibly be flamebait. That is straight-up "informative" goodness.

Furthermore, your post reiterates an important point: Piracy steals from everyone; not just the rich.

Everyone around here likes to believe in the goofy dot-com, Web 2.0, long-tail, free economics model of "new capitialism," but really, it's the same crazy bullshit as the credit crisis--a lot of people living high on the hog without any actual value being created.

Actually the Torrent tracker makes it possible. TPB's just linking to it, they're no more liable for it happening than Google is. TPB didn't do anything new to make your software available.

... that takes me 10 hours a day a year to make... for free.

Did software piracy start occuring after you started selling games on-line? Seriously, dude. I have software for sale on-line right now. I knew going in that it'd likely be cracked and made available on-line. I knew there was only so much I was going to make on it. I cannot believe you went into this too naieve to have the same line of thought. Given that you had DRM on your software early on, I am forced to believe that you have. I would really really really like to know why you think you'd suddenly have more money landing in your account if TPB went out of business. If you've got hard data, you'll be helping out a fellow developer by sharing it.

Explain to me again how thepiratebay earning money from ads whilst giving away my work for free, and lining the pockets of its millionaire founder is anything like a fucking robin hood?

I agree, they're nothing like Robin Hood. For starters, they haven't taken anything of yours. The guy you wanna scream at is the guy who put the tracker up. Secondly, they're making money off of selling information, as opposed to shifting goods/products from one person to another. Nothing at all like Robin Hood. Actually, they're a lot like Google. They're making a metric fuckton of money off content you put on the web, too. Those scumbag jerks.

Your anger is misdirected. You really should have another gander at the arguments and listen to them more objectively. I'm not saying this to insult you or to put you in your place, I honestly and truely think you've gotten so wrapped up in the idea that you're missing money that you haven't put serious consideration into what people are saying, here. I should be in the position to be just as angry as you are, but I'm not. If you wonder why, just feel free to ask. I'd much rather discuss than argue, here.

You're not sweden are you? Because you actually miss a very major point there. In here judges think about the actual purpose aswell and I dont think its a secret to anyone what The PIRATE Bay was doing. So if you intentionally assist with something, you will be charged for it no matter if you circumvent the law with some stupid way. The intention here counts a lot more than what I've heard it counts in USA, and you have to take that into consideration aswell. I dont think the pirate bay guys did..

And this is actually backwards:1. I was offered a job. The employer promised to pay me before I started working, otherwise I wouldn't have.2. I really lost those two weeks, because I worked during that time, so I couldn't work in another job (that would have paid).

If I steal a CD/DVD from a store:1. The store paid money for that CD, they cannot sell it to others.2. Real materials were used in making that CD. They cannot be reused to make another copy.

You know, "-1 Flamebait" is no substitute for "-1 Disagree and wish to censor". I don't agree with bonch either, but his post is certainly no flamebait.

I can't answer your question regarding why Slashdot sides with TPB, but I can tell you why *I* side with TPB. I believe that when copyright is no longer primarily used to protect the artist but to protect the publisher, something's really, really wrong with it. And when publishers use this to their advantage and charge people prices they cannot afford, it's just reasonable for them to illegally download stuff. I do not think it is ok to rip off the devs of software or musicians, but I also disagree with it being ok to rip off customers. I download music which is either not available in my country or not available without paying craploads of money for it (sorry, but I refuse to pay ~30â for a CD, especially when the artist which I want to support only gets, say, a third of that cash anyways). I download games because I do not want to support a publisher which uses extremely restrictive DRM and installs rootkits on your PCs (and also because these games are not available in my preferred language in my country and importing is extremely expensive thanks to taxes).

Also, re:GPL...while stealing both GPL code and stealing closed source code is wrong, there is a significant difference. People who release their code under a GPL license want that other people learn from it, evolve it, etc, but also wants that other people can learn from the evolved code as well. Using code from the GPL is fine, but other people should be able to learn from *your* code as well.

One Sentence: Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been dead more than half a century and his FIRST work, made when cars were started with cranks and antibiotics were but a dream, are STILL under copyright. Thanks to the blatant and illegal bribery of our elected officials copyright terms have been extended to virtual eternity and the public domain gets raped of content that should already be ours. US copyright law was a contract-nothing more. In return for a LIMITED monopoly on a work you gave up the rights to that work to a public domain that ALL could benefit from. Now the rights of BOTH the artists and the citizens have been taken by greedy multinational middle men.

So do most folks give a flying fuck if you rip those thieves off? Not really. Hey, we'll just call it Hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org].

You mean if I want to make a cartoon now, i might have to have an original idea?

Exactly. Remember how Disney's fortune was built on the original ideas of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, the Jungle Book, Robin Hood, Winnie-the-Pooh, the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Tarzan?

That's how animators should do things. Original characters and settings. Not just ripping off the work of others because they're long dead and can't complain about it.

Because they prefer to live in denial in their ivory tower and dont like to be constantly reminded by slashdot how real life out there looks like? (Oh irony.)

> that it is completely okay to rip people off and never pay them for their work.

Copying, sharing culture is _not_ wrong. Everybody not OK with the fact that free people fileshare freely should _STOP WORKING_ in a job where he hast to constantly bitch about filesharing. Or he can keep on, but has to come up with a business model other than "selling copies" because it's 2009, and everybody of us can manufacture their own copies themselves, we do not need any "official" copies any more, thank you. Adapt or fucking perish. We wont abstain from using new technology in order to make your business model still work like it did in the 50's.

> clicking and posting about how evil they think capitalism is.

We would not have to do this if you and your likes wouldnt keep clicking and posting about how evil you think a free culture is, and how harder the for-profit censorship called copyright should be.

> And Slashdotters love to make a big deal when a company "steals" GPL code.

So? You forget that the only point of comming up with the GPL was to "effectively remove copyright" in the GPLsphere. Although the GPL is enforced by copyright, the underlying goal of "free software" is to effectively destroy copyright.

I have a question. Why do you side with the RIAA? You are aware that they are running a major frivolous lawsuit campaign, right? That they are extorting settlement money by threatening to sue the weakest and poorest, those least able to defend themselves, irrespective of any evidence? It's one thing to side with copyright, quite another to side with the MAFIAA.

How do you know whether big names post here anymore? The MAFIAA has adopted a position that it is completely okay to rip people off and never pay them for their work. Hollywood accounting has burned a lot of artists. The MAFIAA thinks capitalism is evil, and has worked very hard to eliminate all competition. Nor have they restrained themselves from driving up ad revenues by trying to force DVD owners to watch commercials before being allowed to view the main feature.

The MAFIAA continues to falsely push claims that piracy is theft. The only copyrights that matter to MAFIAA members are the ones they can control. They will violate others' copyrights, and if caught, will refuse to pay until they're at least threatened with a lawsuit. What's that, you want to see the evidence they have indeed done that? Well, where's your evidence that Slashdot has done what you say?

Actually, there is a very good reason to support The Pirate Bay. It hurts the *AA.

And we need to get those reduced to oblivion so copyright can once again be a reasonable tradeof between the authors and the consumers.

Because when laws get passed on behalf of single companies (Disney, I'm looking at you), then there is something deeply rotten. And bankruptcy of those media companies would be a good thing. So anything along that path is a good idea.

I would say many Slashdotters usually side with Pirate Bay because they are in most cases geeks, and geeks by nature tend to be pro-individual to the point of being anti-establishment.

However, in this case your characterization is inaccurate. The Pirate Bay was not "running a major piracy ring." They were providing a technology that enabled the masses to run their own piracy ring(s), but that is different. To rework an old analogy: It would be inaccurate to say that handgun manufacturers were robbing gas stations. It can be argued that they enable illegal activities, but if they were held legally responsible for the actions of the users of their product and forced to shut down, the 2nd Amendment would effectively be right out the window.

The xxAA groups found they had too much trouble catching and prosecuting the innumerable points of copyright infringers, so they decided to aim at a larger target and pray they could take it down. They are holding The Pirate Bay responsible for what their users did with the technology, and in the first pass they seem to be getting away with it so far.

Were they doing something wrong? I don't think so, but that's not really up to me to make the final decision. Certainly they weren't "running a piracy ring" as you claimed.

Slashdot is a community made up of thousands of people. I doubt there is any subject, including whether or not slashdot sucks, that the community has a consensus on.

You are aware that they were running a major piracy ring, right?

I'm not aware of that at all. Considering they do not handle any copyrighted information and no copyrighted information flows through any servers they control, i'd say it's a pretty big stretch to say they are running a major piracy ring.

That they were providing the torrent trackers that facilitated the distribution of copyrighted materials?

They provided text files that told people where people were providing files to download. Some of those people were providing copyrighted content.Telling someone that someone else is selling or giving away content is not illegal, at least not where i am. Nor should it be illegal in my opinion.

Because he's busy building space ships?Have you had specific conversations with Mr. Carmack about his posting habits or are you just making shit up? My suspicion is that you are making shit up.

Slashdot has adopted a position that it is completely okay to rip people off and never pay them for their work. The site mindlessly posts two or three pro-piracy articles per day to appease the masses, who will subsequently drive up ad revenues by clicking and posting about how evil they think capitalism is.

Again, Slashdot, as a community, doesn't really have a consensus about anything, including if Microsoft is evil and if the GPL is a good thing.Also, if the goal is to drive up page views, the best way to do that is to post articles that are at odds with the consensus as that will cause flame wars. Nothing generates page views and comments like a contrarian point of view stated as if it were a fact.

All of this is amusing considering Slashdot has threatened websites in the past for posting Slashdot's stories--due to copyright infringement.

Do you have a citation for this? I do not recall that ever happening, which is not to say it didn't, but that i don't know what you are talking about.

And Slashdotters love to make a big deal when a company "steals" GPL code. Apparently, piracy isn't theft and copyrights don't matter except when it benefits you.

In some slashdotters that apparent dichotomy does exist. I would guess it has to do with intent. People who favour the GPL see it as an important tool for protecting the freedoms of the users of software. Some of these people probably also view the behaviour of the record and movie industries as an abuse of the users of their products and consider the nullification of their copyrights as an appropriate punishment for their actions.

Of course some people also just want stuff for free.

But to try to make sweeping conclusions about the thousands of people who read slashdot based on the one or two hundred people who post on these stories is not in any way valid.

For my part, i am on the side of the pirate bay because i don't think they've done anything illegal. The police and copyright holders should be going after the people seeding the files, not the people saying "those guys are seeding files". If getting the seeders is too technically hard for them, that's too bad. They shouldn't get to go after innocent people just because it's easier.

The site mindlessly posts two or three pro-piracy articles per day to appease the masses, who will subsequently drive up ad revenues by clicking and posting about how evil they think capitalism is.

Capitalism is about competition. Intellectual Property is about suppressing competition by granting monopolies. IP laws are inherently anti-capitalistic. It seems the modern definition of capitalism is government ensuring companies profit despite their successes or failures. That really is corporatism.

How is it capitalism if you don't have to compete with my product, but just give my product away and claim it is yours?

Information isn't a product. Secondly capitalism requires informed consumers, so claiming it's mine should be fraud. See Moral Rights [wikipedia.org] which is a separate issue from copyright. Note the US doesn't recognize Moral Rights.

In fact it is the complete antithesis of creativity and culture, because it enables everyone to re-use other peoples creative works rather than make their own.

Culture and creativity aren't only expressed through original works. By using elements of others work, an artist can make an arrangement that is far superior to the sum of its parts.

If I could get people to buy the Sims from me, without having to bother making it, that sounds like an easy life.

That does sound like an easy life.. but it doesn't work that way. The "getting people to buy" isn't magic,

In this particular case he has worked with a group who has already shown a particular bias. You'd probably let an accountant count votes because he can count, but you wouldn't let that same accountant count the votes if he was also a campaign manager.

Your analogies are usually pretty good, but this one of yours really sucks, man. Your comment title says it all:

Are these people professionals or not?

Come on, man, they're literally people first and foremost! Look at all the so-called "professionals" working in the American financial industry and tell me that they were working for the good of their companies. Being bailed out by the gubmint is not a bullet point on any company's resume!

Obviously, in/. universe, a judge who respects the law of copyright is biased. In other, alternative, universes judges who respect the law are respected.

He didn't respect the law of copyright. He respected the copyright holders more than the law. That was the claim of bias. The Pirate Bay is operating under the letter of Swedish law and this judge allowed the twisting of the law enough so these fellows could be convicted. That's not respect, that's abhorrence.